Throughout 2012, the grand-slam tournaments have slanted their increases in player rewards from the bottom up rather than the top down, underscoring a recognition that the load should be spread more equably.

There is a growing feeling that if the Australian Open does not come up with a significant increase, there will be a show of hands to see if any of the players are prepared to bypass Melbourne next January.

There is increasingly strident talk about tournaments for which there could be enormous prize money and significant ranking points on offer being set up in direct conflict with the grand-slam events. There is a threat that players might choose to compete in these instead, but very few have an appetite for rebellion just yet.

What a nasty piece of work he is. I remember seeing him as a racing commentator. Clearly an eccentric (nothing wrong with that) person who is not objective and has something very personal against Andy.Why? We'll never know, but he's not even fit to utter Andy's name, Just attention seeking I guess, since Andy is in the limelight now for his GREAT achievements.

John McCririck is a big gambler, my guess is he put a big bet on Andy winning some match then Andy lost it so he decided to hate him (or visa-versa; put a bet on Andy to lose a match but then Andy wound up winning it)

Throughout 2012, the grand-slam tournaments have slanted their increases in player rewards from the bottom up rather than the top down, underscoring a recognition that the load should be spread more equably.

There is a growing feeling that if the Australian Open does not come up with a significant increase, there will be a show of hands to see if any of the players are prepared to bypass Melbourne next January.

There is increasingly strident talk about tournaments for which there could be enormous prize money and significant ranking points on offer being set up in direct conflict with the grand-slam events. There is a threat that players might choose to compete in these instead, but very few have an appetite for rebellion just yet.

The resumption of the tennis year that has turned around Andy Murray’s life after his success in one grand-slam tournament will coincide tomorrow with the announcement about how much he will be playing to make it two out of two. And when the Australian Open declares its prize-money levels for the 2013 championships, it will have greater resonance than in recent years.

Throughout 2012, the grand-slam tournaments have slanted their increases in player rewards from the bottom up rather than the top down, underscoring a recognition that the load should be spread more equably.Wimbledon’s increase this year, for example, was 10 per cent across the board, but 26.1 per cent for first-round losers, an astronomical leap in reward for those lasting the least time in the tournament. The players’ pleasure at that decision was offset by the fact that their percentage of revenues from the four grand-slam championships, as opposed to those on their respective tours, was markedly inferior. The grand-slam events pay about 13 per cent of gross revenue to the competitors, whereas on the ATP World Tour the average prize money cut is more than 20 per cent.

There is a growing feeling that if the Australian Open does not come up with a significant increase, there will be a show of hands to see if any of the players are prepared to bypass Melbourne next January.There is increasingly strident talk about tournaments for which there could be enormous prize money and significant ranking points on offer being set up in direct conflict with the grand-slam events. There is a threat that players might choose to compete in these instead, but very few have an appetite for rebellion just yet.

In the meantime, Murray takes on Gaël Monfils in the first round of the Rakuten Open in Tokyo, while Laura Robson has progressed to the second round of the prestigious China Open in Beijing, where she will meet Lourdes Domínguez Lino, of Spain.

The resumption of the tennis year that has turned around Andy Murray’s life after his success in one grand-slam tournament will coincide tomorrow with the announcement about how much he will be playing to make it two out of two. And when the Australian Open declares its prize-money levels for the 2013 championships, it will have greater resonance than in recent years.

Throughout 2012, the grand-slam tournaments have slanted their increases in player rewards from the bottom up rather than the top down, underscoring a recognition that the load should be spread more equably.Wimbledon’s increase this year, for example, was 10 per cent across the board, but 26.1 per cent for first-round losers, an astronomical leap in reward for those lasting the least time in the tournament. The players’ pleasure at that decision was offset by the fact that their percentage of revenues from the four grand-slam championships, as opposed to those on their respective tours, was markedly inferior. The grand-slam events pay about 13 per cent of gross revenue to the competitors, whereas on the ATP World Tour the average prize money cut is more than 20 per cent.

There is a growing feeling that if the Australian Open does not come up with a significant increase, there will be a show of hands to see if any of the players are prepared to bypass Melbourne next January.There is increasingly strident talk about tournaments for which there could be enormous prize money and significant ranking points on offer being set up in direct conflict with the grand-slam events. There is a threat that players might choose to compete in these instead, but very few have an appetite for rebellion just yet.

In the meantime, Murray takes on Gaël Monfils in the first round of the Rakuten Open in Tokyo, while Laura Robson has progressed to the second round of the prestigious China Open in Beijing, where she will meet Lourdes Domínguez Lino, of Spain.

Thanks chl - I suspect the most significant sentence is 'very few have an appetite for rebellion just yet'. There's been talk of this for some time but it hasn't come to anything though I suspect there wouldn't have been the change in rewards for early losers to which the article refers had the top players not taken up their cause. So all the talk hasn't been wasted but can't really see it coming to a boycott.

For a long time it seemed like Andy Murray would be the greatest player never to win a Major. But when Ivan Lendl was appointed his coach you just had the feeling it would work — after all Lendl also looked like he would forever be the runner-up.

A combination of factors saw Murray win his first Grand Slam at the US Open. Having lost his first four Major finals, he was already on the brink of greatness but he seemed to lack that extra level required to get him past the "big three".

So he's finally got there, and in no small part thanks to Lendl, with their work together fruitful in several diverse aspects.

Overall, his game has evolved. In previous years we could say that Murray's game lacked an offensive aspect, that he was too reliant on his opponents' mistakes, as befits someone with a naturally counter-attacking style and great tactical brain. Which was all well and good but, to win a Grand Slam in a golden era for men's tennis, you need to take the initiative, hunt and fight for the title, and he seemed unable to do this.

But for several months now Murray has been taking his game to its maximum, using his forehand winners and backhand returns to dictate the game, change the tempo, call the shots. He is also more aggressive on his returns of serve, which were already a strong point, and is much more attacking on his second serve, making him less reliant on his first serve. Each time he strikes the ball there is intent, not just to keep the point alive but to look for a winner. There are fewer neutral baseline balls — the sort he used to play often so as to drag out the point and wait for an error from the opponent, typical of a counter-puncher.

I have watched the training sessions with Lendl. They do a lot of 2v1, because Lendl wants Murray to become more consistent when faced with a rapid succession of balls, at pace, with a high level of intensity but minimising errors. He also wants to improve Murray's concentration, to make him aware of just what he can achieve if he focuses entirely.

He's making him graft on small elements, using marginal gains to transform his overall game.

LAST YEAR HE'D HAVE LOST TO CILIC

One year ago, Murray would have lost to Marin Cilic under the pressure he was facing in their US Open quarter-final. He was a set and 5-1 down in the second but turned it around in dreadful conditions. One year ago, Murray would have lost to Novak Djokovic in the final, having seen the Serb overhaul a two-set lead, again in poor conditions.

But we are seeing a new Murray mentally, not just showing the resilience that he always had, but the extra determination and fight that the likes of Djokovic and Nadal have made stock in trade. When Murray wasn't playing well or was suffering physically, he would lose matches. Now he is summoning extra reserves of willpower and strength to fight back against the odds, the mark of a true champion.

I'm sure Lendl has found a way to get Murray to motivate himself in addition to the technical improvements he has made — which, in turn, give a player that added confidence and belief. The mental, technical and physical all feed off each other.

Last January in Australia, Murray was not far off Djokovic in their epic semi-final. I remember that match from the first to the last points, and I was surprised at how dominant the Scot was, head and shoulders above the Serb at times. But he had a huge slide in concentration, probably as a result of fatigue, and he allowed Djokovic back into the match. It was not a match that Murray was able to control once Nole came back at him. It was the old Murray mentally, as he had only been with Lendl a few weeks, but the signs were already good. And after a few months, we have seen a huge shift in the balance of power.

At the US Open and Olympics we have seen that Murray, with his added mental and technical armoury, has the perfect game to beat Djokovic, who does not like a counter-puncher. Djokovic prefers quick exchanges, perversely suiting his game better to Federer.

The Australian Open will be a good test of how Djokovic is able to adapt to this threat, and I'm not sure that he has the weapons to deal with the new, attacking Murray.

I've just seen this online-it's an extract from a longer article-yet another one about the brilliant british sporting summer!-but,even though it's short,I thought I'd put the extract about Andy in here.Quite frankly,after such a long time of the press dragging Andy down and being negative about him,I'm thoroughly enjoying the positivity!

Then, of course, it was the summer of Andy Murray, the summer when over 70 years of punching your fist through your hat in exasperation was laid to rest.

Yes, he was beaten in the Wimbledon final by Roger Federer. But the Brit played brilliantly. Only Federer raised his game that one extra gear.

Then came the agonised tears as Sue Barker advanced on him with her microphone. And, at last, we took him to our hearts.

And then he only went and won Olympic gold. And the US Open, the first since Fred Perry in 1066 or whatever. What a reward for sticking to your beliefs when everyone else — except, of course, your mum — said you’d never do it.

This was strength of mind, strength of character and, like all the great champions, a refusal to accept second best.